How did the Kings miss the playoffs?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

^ I guess I need to read info on this.
Because to me it sounds like saying over the course of a season all players should have the same shooting % - that it all evens out.

It's more like saying all teams regress to the same shooting percentage.

There are a few players with the ability to maintain higher shooting percentages year over year. Most average out overtime. And when you take 22 players over multiple seasons it starts to average out as well.

Corsi also assumes that shot selection is equal among all teams and thus far any analysis to prove otherwise has fallen short. But there are some neat concepts like the royal road that suggest otherwise.

I think Corsi works because the league in general adopted Mike Babcocks possession based style of play. So if all teams play a similar style the measuring Corsi works as the base assumption that over time all teams take the same quality of shots plays out to be true.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

The corsi hate here is akin to watching someone on Fox news walk out into a snow storm and claim there's no global warming.

It's a complete misrepresentation of what corsi is, and it's becoming really difficult to read people pile on the Kings as if some how that makes advanced stats useless.

It's a predictive tool that's no where near perfect and has never been claimed to be.

except when clowns in the media rank the Flames low all year because of it no matter what the results on the ice are. People around here are tired of it and I don't blame them.

unsustainable? Flames have been doing it for a year and a half

had the Flames missed the playoffs with 96 points or whatever the "I told ya so" guys would be coming out of the woodwork

[DuffMan]

When I was watching Regher giving Hudler some cross checks in front of the net, I was thinking that in the old days, LA would've just punked us into submission. I blame the new rules for LA's demise. They are big and tough but can't score, and they were worried about penalties., That's another thing, the Flames haven't taken a penalty in 3 games or something like that, Having a PK that goes 100% in the 3 most important games helps.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I personally believe that Calgary is going to consistently buck the trend. Johnny Gaudreau himself is the epitome of an anti-corsi player. He makes one move on Doughty, then fires a pass through his legs to an open Hudler for an insane scoring chance. They lose the puck. This happens consistently. Game after game, shift after shift. Yet Corsi continues to predict that JG is an awful player.

No it doesn't. It, in fact, argues the complete opposite. Also, don't cherry pick one stat in the very same post where you essentially attack those you disagree with for cherry picking one stat.

The Flames as a team give up far more SATs than they generate, so every player is likely to be lower. That is not an argument that "player x is bad". In the case of Gaudreau specifically, his Corsi For relative to his own teammates was +5.04 and Corsi Against relative was -2.95. What these are saying is that Gaudreau is one of the best players on the team at driving possession.

Bluntly, the Flames will not "consistently buck the trend", because the Flames will not consistently get career seasons from half the team. What will happen - hopefully - is that we will continue to develop and get better on both sides of the puck. Over time, we should be creating more chances and surrendering fewer. We likely won't be a Kings-esque Corsi darling so long as our gameplan is based around counterattacking, but we should be able to get to 50%+ rather than the current 46.

[automaton 3]

Fatigue might be one factor, but overall the Kings looked like a slow team last night.

It will be interesting to see what changes happen there in the off season.

[Rick M.]

The Kings are getting old and slow. Last year Toffoli and Pearson gave them an injection of youth and speed which papered over their weaknesses. Toffoli has been unable to score lately and Pearson is out with injury. The defenceman they got at the trade deadline (Sekara) to make up for the loss of Mitchell and Voynov is out with injury.

[burnitdown]

The Johnny hat trick game answers the question. If he doesn't score one of those goals, we'd be tied at 95 points right now.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

The Kings missed because they were a worse than average 4 on 4 / shootout team and lost more than their share of extra points.

The Flames made it because they are a better than average 4 on 4 team, and won more than their share of extra points.

[burn_this_city]

Too much time at the beach and gallivanting around with celebrity babes.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No it doesn't. It, in fact, argues the complete opposite. Also, don't cherry pick one stat in the very same post where you essentially attack those you disagree with for cherry picking one stat.

Sorry which stat am I cherry picking? The fact that I don't believe PDO is predictive (and that it only reinforces what people believe about the teams themselves) or the fact that I don't think Corsi is adaptable? (based on the fact that Anaheim is bucked the trend for 4+ seasons?)

The Flames as a team give up far more SATs than they generate, so every player is likely to be lower. That is not an argument that "player x is bad". In the case of Gaudreau specifically, his Corsi For relative to his own teammates was +5.04 and Corsi Against relative was -2.95. What these are saying is that Gaudreau is one of the best players on the team at driving possession.

In fact it is. If Gaudreau is an excellent player according to Corsi, he should have a CF% of 55%+. Not relative to his teammates, but relative to the entire league. The fact that he's better than his teammates, in theory would mean that's he's just the best out of an awful bunch. Bringing in team-based comparison means that you also believe that there are systemic differences in team play that lead to these discrepancies.

Bluntly, the Flames will not "consistently buck the trend", because the Flames will not consistently get career seasons from half the team. What will happen - hopefully - is that we will continue to develop and get better on both sides of the puck. Over time, we should be creating more chances and surrendering fewer. We likely won't be a Kings-esque Corsi darling so long as our gameplan is based around counterattacking, but we should be able to get to 50%+ rather than the current 46.

There are many things that we can continue to excel at that are not as luck-based as Corsi would like us to believe:
- 4v4 play can stay impressive. With players that excel with more ice, this can be reproducible.
- Continue to stay disciplined and have a high PP-PK differential. Again, small shifty forwards and a disciplined defence. Corsians assume that all teams should be penalized the same.
- Shot blocking. Having the NHL's best shot blocker in Kris Russell at some point will be seen as a positive rather than a negative.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Regorium

In fact it is. If Gaudreau is an excellent player according to Corsi, he should have a CF% of 55%+. Not relative to his teammates, but relative to the entire league. The fact that he's better than his teammates, in theory would mean that's he's just the best out of an awful bunch. Bringing in team-based comparison means that you also believe that there are systemic differences in team play that lead to these discrepancies.

Yeah, you clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

There are ten skaters on the ice. One guy cannot fully offset the effect of the other nine. If you put Pavel Datsyuk on the ice with a bunch of twelve year olds against the Chicago Blackhawks, his possession numbers will be terrible in spite of his individual possession ability being well above average.

That should be obvious to anyone who's spent thirty seconds thinking about it.

[PlayfulGenius]

The league has so much parity, there's just not a lot to separate most teams...I suspect the Kings were a tad tired and lacking just enough 'fire' to bring them back to the pack.

My money says they rest up this summer and come back as a dominant, hungry team next season.

[DuffMan]

Because they couldn't beat the oilers.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, you clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

There are ten skaters on the ice. One guy cannot fully offset the effect of the other nine. If you put Pavel Datsyuk on the ice with a bunch of twelve year olds against the Chicago Blackhawks, his possession numbers will be terrible in spite of his individual possession ability being well above average.

That should be obvious to anyone who's spent thirty seconds thinking about it.

I am extremely well versed in Corsi thank you very much. I offered a ridiculous scenario to get your brains moving on possible things that Corsi might be missing. But it's very obvious that you continue to maintain that Corsi is foolproof and that "luck and variance" can explain everything that doesn't fit the overall narrative.

I am well aware that it's ridiculous to use Corsi (relative to his own team or not) to describe a player. I'm just starting to come around to the fact that using Corsi to describe a team is just as bad.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Regorium

But it's very obvious that you continue to maintain that Corsi is foolproof and that "luck and variance" can explain everything that doesn't fit the overall narrative.

If it's so obvious you must be able to quote an instance where I've said that.

I'd honestly like this forum a lot better if you could be banned for straw men. This kind of garbage makes it absolutely impossible to have a reasonable conversation.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

If it's so obvious you must be able to quote an instance where I've said that.

I'd honestly like this forum a lot better if you could be banned for straw men. This kind of garbage makes it absolutely impossible to have a reasonable conversation.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There are ten skaters on the ice. One guy cannot fully offset the effect of the other nine. If you put Pavel Datsyuk on the ice with a bunch of twelve year olds against the Chicago Blackhawks, his possession numbers will be terrible in spite of his individual possession ability being well above average.

Is this an example of a Straw man argument that should be banned?

[opendoor]

The Kings did tend to have a lower number of scoring chances per shot attempt compared to other teams, but even strictly looking at scoring chances they were #6 in the NHL in SCF%.

But really, by any measure they were an elite 5-on-5 team. #1 in Corsi, #1 in shot differential, #4 in goal differential, and #6 in scoring chance differential. All this "all shots aren't created equal" is a red herring because even strictly looking at goals scored, LA was a fantastic 5-on-5 team.

But unfortunately for the Kings, aggregate 5-on-5 stats (whether they be possession numbers or goal numbers) don't necessarily always translate into success in the standings, especially if you lose as many 1 goal games as LA did. LA played 36 one goal games and only won 12 of them. If they had won half of those games, as you'd expect any reasonably average team to do, they'd easily be in the playoffs. But they didn't, so they're out. Still a great team though.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Only pulling out 3 wins in 18 OT/SO games definitely had something to do with it. 9 of the 15 losses were in games where the Kings even scored first.

That's probably the biggest reason right there. OT and SO wins are closer to a coin flip than deciding games in regulation.

If the Kings had even gone .500 in OT and the SO they'd have finished with a 100 points and everyone would be talking about how unbeatable they look going into the playoffs.

[OutOfTheCube]

I'll tell you why.

Right here: http://sabres.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=743265

We only had 15 regulation wins this year. Happy to help, friends!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I am extremely well versed in Corsi thank you very much. I offered a ridiculous scenario to get your brains moving on possible things that Corsi might be missing. But it's very obvious that you continue to maintain that Corsi is foolproof and that "luck and variance" can explain everything that doesn't fit the overall narrative.

And we are done here. If you lack the wit and intelligence to argue what is being said, and instead feel the need to invent opinions and assign them to others, then you are just wasting your time and mine.

And no, it is quite evident that you are not remotely versed in Corsi. Rather, you are taking a very primitive understanding of it and either through ignorance (which is curable if you so desire) or deliberately (and disingenuously) mis-applying out of context to try and prove a point.

Problem is, the point you are proving is not what you think.